New Delhi : The parliamentary panel examining the Waqf (Amendment) Bill requested detailed updates from state governments on the status of Waqf properties allegedly occupied unlawfully by them, as highlighted in the Sachar Committee Report, news agency PTI reported citing sources. This inquiry aims to verify claims made during 2005-06 regarding unauthorised state occupation of such properties.
The committee has also sought information about properties claimed by Waqf boards under Section 40 of the Waqf Act. This section, amended during the Congress-led UPA government in 2013, grants Waqf boards the authority to determine whether a property belongs to the Waqf. The proposed amendments aim to restrict these powers, sparking criticism from opposition parties and Muslim groups, who argue that the changes interfere with religious matters.
According to sources, the committee, chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, is revisiting the Sachar Committee’s findings, which reported 316 Waqf properties in Delhi, 60 in Rajasthan, 42 in Karnataka, 53 in Madhya Pradesh, 60 in Uttar Pradesh and 53 in Odisha under alleged unauthorised state occupation. The panel has asked chief ministers of these states to investigate the accuracy of these claims and provide updates.
State governments have been urged to report on legal disputes involving Waqf boards over property ownership. Notably, the Sachar Committee acknowledged that its list of disputed properties was not exhaustive. The Joint Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill’s tenure was extended until the conclusion of the next Budget Session through a resolution adopted on November 28, following opposition demands for more time to scrutinise the draft report.
Meetings of the parliamentary panel have become politically charged, with BJP and opposition members engaging in heated debates over the proposed amendments. Despite initial resistance, Jagdambika Pal stated that the committee unanimously agreed to seek an extension, stating that opposition viewpoints were included in the draft report, countering allegations of rushed proceedings.
